When less is more

[PS Audio]

<!-- #thumb --> <p>My friend Mark and I were chatting about why vinyl records sound “better” than CD’s, yet if you make a CD of a vinyl record it sounds essentially the same as the record. *This counter intuitive fact can be explained quite simply, I am told, and that is because records have far less dynamic range than CD’s. *Far less.</p>
<p>So why would less be more or, in this case, better? *Imagine for a moment you are a mastering engineer charged with transferring music from either a live event or a recording onto a vinyl record stamper. *You are going to try and squeeze as much of the musical information onto the vinyl master as you can but you have a problem: it’s that limited dynamic range again.</p>
<p>Mastering for vinyl has always been a balance between loudness and playing time. The louder you want a song to be, the wider the groove needs to be in order to accommodate the larger amplitude of the album. Since there’s only a limited amount of usable surface area per vinyl disc, gaining dynamic range means sacrificing playing time, especially on a long playing (LP) record where upwards of six songs are often fit on each side of the disc.</p>
<p>Live music typically has a dynamic range of 120 dB, peaking at about the same loudness of a jet engine (though some concerts have gone even louder). Vinyl records tend to have about 70 dB of dynamic range (16 bit CD’s have close to 100dB). This means that in order to fit a song onto a record, you either need to reduce its overall amplitude or compress it (have its peaks brought down to a lower level) to fit within the given range. How much of each was done varied from record to record and defined the art of mastering. But here’s the point: mastering vinyl requires compression to fit onto the space.</p>
<p>Why is this important? *Because when you compress music, the lower level details become more apparent and take an unnatural loudness relative to everything else. *All the cues that give us space, ambience, soundstage, reverberation and room size are to be found in those low level details. *So when those low level details, containing all those spacial cues are amplified, relative to everything else, guess what happens? *You get better ambience, soundstage and “live” information. *In fact, you get the very qualities so loved by those of us that enjoy vinyl. *I don’t think this is a coincidence.</p>
<p>This is exactly why you can make a CD of a record and capture the beauty of the vinyl without a problem, but try making a straight CD of a live event and it won’t sound as live, ambient and rich. *It’ll sound “digital”.</p>
<p>I think Mark’s argument has merit. *I think he’s right. *And if he is, one should be able to add the same compression techniques used by mastering engineers for vinyl, to digital audio and get the same results without having to transfer to vinyl.</p>
<p>It may also answer why I have a number of digital recordings transferred to vinyl that sound very analog like.</p>
<p>Sometimes less is more.</p>
<center><a href="http://www.pstracks.com/pauls-posts/when-less-is-more-2/12290/emailpopup/" onclick="email_popup(this.href); return false;" title="Forward to a friend and help us engage more readers" rel="nofollow"><img class="WP-EmailIcon" src="http://www.pstracks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-email/images/email.gif" alt="email When less is more" title="When less is more" /></a>*<a href="http://www.pstracks.com/pauls-posts/when-less-is-more-2/12290/emailpopup/" onclick="email_popup(this.href); return false;" title="Forward to a friend and help us engage more readers" rel="nofollow">Forward to a friend and help us engage more readers</a></center><br /><!-- // MAILCHIMP SUBSCRIBE CODE --><center><a href="http://eepurl.com/eSzBY">Get new and fresh stories like this each morning by joining the folks reading Paul's Posts. Click here </a></center>
<!-- MAILCHIMP SUBSCRIBE CODE // -->

[Source: http://www.pstracks.com/pauls-posts/when-less-is-more-2/12290/]

 

[jaxwired]

I have a different simpler theory. Audiophiles buy ruthlessly revealing speakers that often produce a bright and forward playback experience. Vinyl rolls off those high frequencies making the overly bright speakers tolerable.

So what's better, compromised source material such as vinyl to allow unbalance tipped up audiophile systems to remain listenable or more natural sounding speakers that allow high resolution source files to be fully exploited?

This is why speakers like harbeth for example are so very popular. Described as "music lovers speakers" by many, they avoid the overly pronounced high frequencies that allow digital to sound wonderful. Vinyl on harbeth tends to sound dull and lifeless without the unnatural upper end propulsion provided by so called "high end" speakers.

Occam's razor bee-otch. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

People that favor vinyl just never get tired of trying to find a logical reason why they prefer a clearly inferior source medium. Why? Because deep down they realize it is inferior and it violates what the audiophile is trying to achieve, the best possible sound reproduction. So they just must come up with some convoluted explanation why this obviously inferior source material actual is superior. It's not superior, just accept it, sheesh!

 

[CDLehner]

I have a different simpler theory. Audiophiles buy ruthlessly revealing speakers that often produce a bright and forward playback experience. Vinyl rolls off those high frequencies making the overly bright speakers tolerable.

So what's better, compromised source material such as vinyl to allow unbalance tipped up audiophile systems to remain listenable or more natural sounding speakers that allow high resolution source files to be fully exploited?

This is why speakers like harbeth for example are so very popular. Described as "music lovers speakers" by many, they avoid the overly pronounced high frequencies that allow digital to sound wonderful. Vinyl on harbeth tends to sound dull and lifeless without the unnatural upper end propulsion provided by so called "high end" speakers.

Occam's razor bee-otch. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

People that favor vinyl just never get tired of trying to find a logical reason why they prefer a clearly inferior source medium. Why? Because deep down they realize it is inferior and it violates what the audiophile is trying to achieve, the best possible sound reproduction. So they just must come up with some convoluted explanation why this obviously inferior source material actual is superior. It's not superior, just accept it, sheesh!

I'm totally with Jax on this one; but at least PSA...unlike many Vinyl guys...basically says, Vinyl is less (read: "inferior"). Just that he thinks "less is more".


I'm all for the "less is more" approach, if it's the sound that moves you. I happen to love the British speakers, Jax talks about; for that reason. When I first switched...from a highly regarded brand; everyone said...man, they have no bass.


First of all, that's not true; these speakers have "natural-sounding", full, punchy bass. Perfectly acceptable...once you get used to it; even if the numbers aren't impressive. Second of all...I don't miss the deep, deep bass all that much. I don't listen to numbers...and I've stopped picking gear, that impresses others.


To me; just for me. Too deep a bass, is almost like too high highs; neither is particularly natural or musical. It's mostly in the middle. So maybe I'm seemingly making PSA's argument for him? Less is more; and whether you use a "lesser-sounding" source, like Vinyl to achieve it...or "lesser-sounding" speakers. It's six of one, half-dozen of the other?


Well...not in my mind. Because I subscribe to the "you can't get blood from a stone" approach. If I want to system-match...and "tone-down" a source; by use of a certain pre-amp, amp, or speakers...that's my choice. But if I start with less at the source...then the choice is not mine to make. If I change my mind, or approach; there's not as much there to extract...should I choose.

Obviously, I'm a digital guy; so I just don't see the argument. PSA suggests Vinyl is "better"; because it inherently unbalances the recording? Isn't that rather twisted logic?

CD

 

[joeinid]

Welcome to the forum Chris!

It's great to see you here!

 

[NorthStar]

When more is less

 

[MusicDirector]

Wow! Fabulous article! This explains a lot! I thought what I was hearing was illusion, but according to what I read here, it is not illusion. I'm not all that keen with the "vinyl is better than CD or CD is better than vinyl" arguments. For me, it's always been about the music no matter the format. I already knew the aspects of recording to CD vs tape, etc. When I was digitizing some of the vinyl I have/had I noted that I really had to watch the levels as it takes very little to overshoot the mark into clipping or too loud as well. The thing that played with my head though was with proper recording procedures the CDs I made did played through my very revealing speakers, in fact sound very close to the records, almost near perfect duplicate and I did not quite understand why. I was expecting a far more sterile or thin sound, but was presented with a warmer, somewhat more pleasurable sound. What's more is that I recorded to a stand alone CD recorder and then ran the recording through my PC and applied some correction (not too much) and such and then burned to a high quality CD. (I checked it of course through my completely flat and neutral NF monitors the whole time). The other great thing about this article is that it answers a recent burning question for me or I should say eases my mind about digitizing some other records that were never available on CD so I can have them to listen to without worrying. This also brings up another question in my head: How is it that some of my purchased CDs that I had sounded fine with my old speakers and then sounded will, unlistenable when I got my new ones? I chucked the unlistenable CDs, but the rest sound from good to great obviously. I'm guessing it's all in the engineering?